Optimize In Camera Jpeg White Balance RGB Histogram For Better ETTR.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

The point is that sensors can't significantly improve in sensitivity anymore, making such a feature mostly pointless.

[Osprey]

Is UniWB still used?  I remember that green tinted look on my Nikon D200.

[TonyW]

The point is that sensors can't significantly improve in sensitivity anymore, making such a feature mostly pointless.

I think I lost track somewhere along the way so can I ask in your opinion which feature would be mostly pointless?

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

If there were a way for the ISO setting to somehow physically change the sensor sensitivity to light.

[Alan Klein]

How much more do you get or need by maximizing ETTR?  I shoot Velvia 50 film and I'm just happy when I don't clip the whites.  I usually bracket to make sure.  I really don;t care about the shadows.  Whatever details are there are usually OK.  Normal people don;t look there anyway.  They're looking at the brighter areas where the subject is.  Maximizing details and measuring DR in the shadows is a form of pixel peeping. 

[Guillermo Luijk]

How much more do you get or need by maximizing ETTR?

In the shadows, where electronic noise is the most relevant, SNR is doubled for every extra stop of exposure. Four extra stops means increasing SNR by 2^4=16 like here:



Regards

[Alan Klein]

If the picture on the left represents the whole picture without a crop, then it wasn't exposed properly in the first place.

[Guillermo Luijk]

If the picture on the left represents the whole picture without a crop, then it wasn't exposed properly in the first place.

Both are 100% crops of the shadows of an entire scene. Their only purpose was to answer to your question "How much more do you get or need by maximizing ETTR?". You get a 2x factor in SNR in the shadows for every extra stop of exposure. If ETTR helps you to get more exposure, ETTR helps you to increase SNR.

If a scene has 12 stops of DR and your camera too (e.g. Nikon D850), you need ETTR to capture it in a single shot.

12-stops scene before processing: in your Velvia images you probably clipped the shadows to black, but this is not an option in interiors photography.



After processing:




Regards

[Alan Klein]

OK.  For an interior pro photographer, squeezing out every last bit of shadow area may be important.  But for the non-interior photographer, the difference between a great shot and an average shot isn't going to be if he gets let's say 11 or 12 stops DR rather than 9 or 10 stops.  If the shadow areas go dark a little sooner, no one is going to care.  The great shots will be better lighting overall, content, etc. as long as they're not clipping the highlights.  After all, 12 stops DR is a rather new capability.  How did photographers create all the great shots of the past with films like Velvia with its 5 stops or even even digital cameras before the 750 with much lower DR ranges?  We don't want to substitute technical prowess for aesthetic feeling and content.

[E. Dinur]

But it is surely better when the artist has the freedom to decide how much of the DR he wants to use and how much he will relinquish for the sake of aesthetics, rather than have the decision forced on him by the the restraints of inferior tools or less than optimum utilization of better tools.

[digitaldog]

OK.  For an interior pro photographer, squeezing out every last bit of shadow area may be important.  But for the non-interior photographer, the difference between a great shot and an average shot isn't going to be if he gets let's say 11 or 12 stops DR rather than 9 or 10 stops.  If the shadow areas go dark a little sooner, no one is going to care.  The great shots will be better lighting overall, content, etc. as long as they're not clipping the highlights.  After all, 12 stops DR is a rather new capability.  How did photographers create all the great shots of the past with films like Velvia with its 5 stops or even even digital cameras before the 750 with much lower DR ranges?  We don't want to substitute technical prowess for aesthetic feeling and content.

No, it's important for any photographer who wishes control over the quality of how they render their images.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

After all, 12 stops DR is a rather new capability.  How did photographers create all the great shots of the past with films like Velvia with its 5 stops

Photographers knew to use color negative film when the dynamic range of the scene exceeded the capabilities of Velvia. Color negative film has as much dynamic range as today's cameras (even more, if you shoot straight into the sun).

[Guillermo Luijk]

Color negative film has as much dynamic range as today's cameras (even more, if you shoot straight into the sun).

I was surprised not long ago to find out about this. Indeed film can have much more DR than digital sensors, specially towards the highlights. What film lacks by far vs digital is image quality in terms of SNR. The peak of SNR in a digital sensor is many dB's above film:



The sensor reaches +25dB over film. Every 6dB means doubling SNR, so peak SNR in digital is about 16 times that of film. That's a huge gap, the same as in the crops I showed to Alan.

In addition to that, generally speaking SNR below 12dB is insufficient by today's standards. This reduces quite a lot the theoretical DR of film messured at SNR=0dB.

The conclusion is that film is no rival today for digital: sensors have similar practical DR and much better SNR. Not to speak about processing possibilities.

Regards

[Alan Klein]

I'm not saying that it's not good to have widest DR range possible. But you don't want to overly spend time to squeeze another half a stop out of an unimportant shadow detail rather than finding a better place to aim the camera or waiting for better light.  Sometimes we get caught up on the technical rather than focusing on the aesthetic.

[Alan Klein]

Photographers knew to use color negative film when the dynamic range of the scene exceeded the capabilities of Velvia. Color negative film has as much dynamic range as today's cameras (even more, if you shoot straight into the sun).

Most of the best magazine covers for Outdoor Photographer and other magazines of the era were shot with velvia or other chrome film.    Somehow they lived with the five to seven stops that chome film gave them. Another one or two stops isn't going to make the picture. Let's not get carried away with the power of ETTR.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Somehow they lived with the five to seven stops that chome film gave them.

One day I went to Ikea and found a very nice exhibition of the covers of all their famous (at least in Europe) annual brochures. There were over 40-50 framed images.

The evolution on technical quality was amazing, from unsharp pictures with totally blown up lamps and windows to the recent ones, sharp and clean images with all lights under control. I doubt anyone complaint about the 60's and 70's images in the time, but they would never be accepted and published today.

Regards

[Alan Klein]

One day I went to Ikea and found a very nice exhibition of the covers of all their famous (at least in Europe) annual brochures. There were over 40-50 framed images.

The evolution on technical quality was amazing, from unsharp pictures with totally blown up lamps and windows to the recent ones, sharp and clean images with all lights under control. I doubt anyone complaint about the 60's and 70's images in the time, but they would never be accepted and published today.

Regards

I agree that photography today is much better than it was before. But that's the technology of the camera. But squeezing another half a stop out of a shadow area is not going to make a photograph compelling. I think many photographers, and I'm included, get sidetracked with technical aspects thinking that if I only had that better camera or that better technology that somehow my photos are going to be better. Only to be disappointed that when I upgrade, I'm still shooting snapshots. Oh sure, they are sharper and have more dynamic range. But they're still crummy snapshots.

I'd be better off learning about lighting,  content,  and making a more compelling photograph.

[Frans Waterlander]

Now, come on Alan! Technical and artistic issues are different. The OP brought up a technical issue, so let's stick with that. Whether or not this issue is important to you is for you to decide.

It's not only about blocked up shadows/more shadow detail, but more importantly, shadow detail with less noise/grain. This is even more of an issue with HDR photography.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

Somehow they lived with the five to seven stops that chome film gave them.

Photographers lived for more than 100 years only with black and white photography, and great art was created during this time. Does that mean that photographers don't need color?

Should we abandon panchromatic film as well?

[digitaldog]

I'm not saying that it's not good to have widest DR range possible. But you don't want to overly spend time to squeeze another half a stop out of an unimportant shadow detail rather than finding a better place to aim the camera or waiting for better light.  Sometimes we get caught up on the technical rather than focusing on the aesthetic.

Optimal exposure doesn't taken more time, just a little knowledge!